The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Regarding the disagreements about NAWARD, I would like to note that the way I read that note/essay/whatever is that an award needs to meet GNG, which this one doesn't, as careful analyses have shown that the sources brought forward are based on press releases and therefore do not contribute toward GNG. In the absence of truly independent sources treating the subject in depth the "delete" !votes have the stronger argument.
Randykitty (
talk) 16:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:NORG. A literary award by a private foundation. Concern is lack of significant coverage of the award. The sources are
WP:ROUTINE news articles that announce the winner. The foundation website is dead. DBigXrayᗙ 21:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)reply
CommentShivkarandholiya12 you might want to read
WP:Speedy_keep#Applicability first. I have analysed the sources you presented. The 4 line content published on all of them are "exactly the same" and based on the "press statement" from K K Birla foundation. Article based on press statements cannot be used to establish notability see
WP:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Examples_of_dependent_coverage from
WP:ORGIND Moreover one of the link you mentioned
[5] is not even about Bihari Puraskar, can you recheck it, appears to me as a mistake. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Where is the link of the "press statement" from K K Birla foundation"? The two articles from Navbharat Times and Hindustan Times share no similarity because
Hindustan times mention "2 Lakh" for a name, but
Navbharat Times makes no mention of even "2". You should refrain from falsification.
I note an assumption of bad faith here. please see
WP:AGF and
WP:NPA. There is no need of falsification. The source clearly state "press statement"
Hindustan times in its article credits the press statement with the line"A statement issued by the selection committee (of award) ... :.
Navbharat Times in its article credits it to press statement with the line"के के बिरला फाउंडेशन द्वारा आज यहां जारी विग्यप्ति में बताया गया " which translates in english to "As stated in the press statement issued by KK Birla foundation" --DBigXrayᗙ 15:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Why you are copy pasting
a weak argument which I had already refuted?
[6] To say content is "exactly the same" when it is not is indeed falsification of sources.
Shivkarandholiya12 (
talk) 16:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Awards which are truly notable receive coverage above and beyond articles attributed to press statements. There doesn't seem to be any indication of the same here. Regards. — fr+ 05:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
While some sources are press statement you are forgetting that we are discussing about the award, not the company. Can you prove if these sources
[7][8][9][10][11] are press statement? We are not making any exceptional claim, neither discussing notability of a company but an award which appears to have received significant coverage.
Shivkarandholiya12 (
talk) 06:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Yes,
[12] says "यह जानकारी फाउंडेशन के निदेशक सुरेश ऋतुपर्ण ने जारी बयान में दी" that translates to "This information was given by Director of the foundation in a press release." Press releases don't qualify for notability per
WP:ORGIND.
All the sources provided so far only mention these exact lines that have already been shown to be coming from press statement. "Bihari Puraskar is a literary award instituted by K. K. Birla Foundation . The award is named after the famous Hindi poet Bihari and is awarded to an outstanding work published in Hindi or Rajasthani by a Rajasthani writer. It carries a citation, a plaque and prize money".
If it is notable, then why aren't you able to find any coverage that talks more about the award other than these 3-4 lines ? --DBigXrayᗙ 07:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Press statements are dependent coverage see
WP:ORGIND
newspaper
exact same 4 line mention of the award in a
WP:ROUTINE article on award announcement sourced from "press statement" from K K Birla foundation.
✘No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Sources have provided as much information as it was necessary to provide about the subject, which is certainly more than a passing mention. They are
WP:INDEPENDENT from the subject and qualify
WP:RS and that is all you need to think about.
Shivkarandholiya12 (
talk) 14:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)reply
These sources are not enough to satisfy
WP:NORG, If you think it passes, then please share the sources and the criteria. I have explained above why these articles based on "press statements" of the KK Birla foundation are not independent per
WP:ORGIND. Even for claiming
WP:SIGCOV "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject is needed. This is clearly lacking here. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak Delete Per DBX; though I disagree (to an extent) about the branding of the sources to contribute nothing to GNG.
∯WBGconverse 07:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete The sources are mostly
WP:ROUTINE coverage. There does not appears to be much in-depth significant coverage of the award. Non-notable. — fr+ 18:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep per Shivkarandholiya12. Passes WP:NAWARDWP:GNG.
[15]WP:ROUTINE is irrelevant given the years of sufficient coverage in RS.
D4iNa4 (
talk) 12:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC) (modified 15:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC))reply
WP:NAWARD is not a valid policy or criteria.
Arjundeo Charan bags Bihari Puraskar article you quoted above, has exact same 4 line mention of the award in a
WP:ROUTINE article on award announcement sourced from "press statement" from K K Birla foundation. I have updated my analysis table to include this.
WP:ROUTINE is clearly applicable here. Thousands of foundations give millions of awards every year, just because they give award every year and their press statement gets published in newspaper, isn't a valid justification of notability see
WP:ORGIND. Significant coverage of the award in Reliable media is what is lacking here. If you can provide multiple sources with significant coverage, I will withdraw my nomonation myself. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)reply
WP:NAWARD is best we have to get idea of notability about the award related articles. Since that award is given by KK Birla Foundation, it is obvious that their statement would be covered. What else do you expect? Fact that it is covered by reliable independent sources is what we need for meeting criteria which is already provided to you with enough sources.
Shivkarandholiya12 (
talk) 16:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Do you see the archived template at
WP:NAWARD ? It is there because community has decided with consensus that
WP:NAWARD is no longer a valid guideline for notability. So please stop quoting it. If you think that this award is significantly covered, then why are you not presenting the references that have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" all the sources you are presenting are based on press statements and then arguing that such sources based on press statements are valid for notability. No they are not. Please see
Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Examples_of_dependent_coverage to be precise, that specifically excludes articles on Press statements from being used for notability. The fact that you are unable to find any sources other than routine award announcement based on Press statement, should itself make it clear to anyone that the subject is not notable. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep Passes
WP:NAWARD and receives independent coverage from reliable media whenever it is awarded to generally a notable person. Nom's rationale is misleading.
Orientls (
talk) 04:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable soruces that are independent of the subject.
GSS (
talk|
c|
em) 10:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Shashank5988 Thanks for sharing the relevant links. I note that first source you presented
[19] mentions, "A statement issued by the (award) selection committee..." which means this award announcement news article is based on the press statement and uses the exact same lines that all the articles from press statements have been using
Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Examples_of_dependent_coverage (
Churnalism). Both these 2 links
[20][21] talk about other writers and only have one line mention of the award saying this writer got the Bihari award.
The recent pile on votes that are quoting
WP:NAWARD, which is not an existing notability guideline or policy, never was. And making comments of
WP:ASSERTN without reliable sources to back the claim, should be appropriately discounted by the closing admin. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment-
Guys, can you please read the stuff rather than blindly copying whatever policy/guideline/essay the previous !voter has thrown in ?
NAWARD was instituted to segregate those awards which are so valued, that a mere recieval auto-entitles someone to an Wikipedia article.
It has not got much anything to do about the wiki-notability of the awards, themselves and the connections are tangential.
Whilst, initial response to the formulation of NAWARD was heartening; the editors lost interest soon-after and it was left to wither.
As it currently stands; it has not been actively vetted by the community.
∯WBGconverse 15:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Regarding the disagreements about NAWARD, I would like to note that the way I read that note/essay/whatever is that an award needs to meet GNG, which this one doesn't, as careful analyses have shown that the sources brought forward are based on press releases and therefore do not contribute toward GNG. In the absence of truly independent sources treating the subject in depth the "delete" !votes have the stronger argument.
Randykitty (
talk) 16:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:NORG. A literary award by a private foundation. Concern is lack of significant coverage of the award. The sources are
WP:ROUTINE news articles that announce the winner. The foundation website is dead. DBigXrayᗙ 21:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)reply
CommentShivkarandholiya12 you might want to read
WP:Speedy_keep#Applicability first. I have analysed the sources you presented. The 4 line content published on all of them are "exactly the same" and based on the "press statement" from K K Birla foundation. Article based on press statements cannot be used to establish notability see
WP:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Examples_of_dependent_coverage from
WP:ORGIND Moreover one of the link you mentioned
[5] is not even about Bihari Puraskar, can you recheck it, appears to me as a mistake. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Where is the link of the "press statement" from K K Birla foundation"? The two articles from Navbharat Times and Hindustan Times share no similarity because
Hindustan times mention "2 Lakh" for a name, but
Navbharat Times makes no mention of even "2". You should refrain from falsification.
I note an assumption of bad faith here. please see
WP:AGF and
WP:NPA. There is no need of falsification. The source clearly state "press statement"
Hindustan times in its article credits the press statement with the line"A statement issued by the selection committee (of award) ... :.
Navbharat Times in its article credits it to press statement with the line"के के बिरला फाउंडेशन द्वारा आज यहां जारी विग्यप्ति में बताया गया " which translates in english to "As stated in the press statement issued by KK Birla foundation" --DBigXrayᗙ 15:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Why you are copy pasting
a weak argument which I had already refuted?
[6] To say content is "exactly the same" when it is not is indeed falsification of sources.
Shivkarandholiya12 (
talk) 16:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Awards which are truly notable receive coverage above and beyond articles attributed to press statements. There doesn't seem to be any indication of the same here. Regards. — fr+ 05:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
While some sources are press statement you are forgetting that we are discussing about the award, not the company. Can you prove if these sources
[7][8][9][10][11] are press statement? We are not making any exceptional claim, neither discussing notability of a company but an award which appears to have received significant coverage.
Shivkarandholiya12 (
talk) 06:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Yes,
[12] says "यह जानकारी फाउंडेशन के निदेशक सुरेश ऋतुपर्ण ने जारी बयान में दी" that translates to "This information was given by Director of the foundation in a press release." Press releases don't qualify for notability per
WP:ORGIND.
All the sources provided so far only mention these exact lines that have already been shown to be coming from press statement. "Bihari Puraskar is a literary award instituted by K. K. Birla Foundation . The award is named after the famous Hindi poet Bihari and is awarded to an outstanding work published in Hindi or Rajasthani by a Rajasthani writer. It carries a citation, a plaque and prize money".
If it is notable, then why aren't you able to find any coverage that talks more about the award other than these 3-4 lines ? --DBigXrayᗙ 07:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Press statements are dependent coverage see
WP:ORGIND
newspaper
exact same 4 line mention of the award in a
WP:ROUTINE article on award announcement sourced from "press statement" from K K Birla foundation.
✘No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Sources have provided as much information as it was necessary to provide about the subject, which is certainly more than a passing mention. They are
WP:INDEPENDENT from the subject and qualify
WP:RS and that is all you need to think about.
Shivkarandholiya12 (
talk) 14:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)reply
These sources are not enough to satisfy
WP:NORG, If you think it passes, then please share the sources and the criteria. I have explained above why these articles based on "press statements" of the KK Birla foundation are not independent per
WP:ORGIND. Even for claiming
WP:SIGCOV "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject is needed. This is clearly lacking here. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak Delete Per DBX; though I disagree (to an extent) about the branding of the sources to contribute nothing to GNG.
∯WBGconverse 07:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete The sources are mostly
WP:ROUTINE coverage. There does not appears to be much in-depth significant coverage of the award. Non-notable. — fr+ 18:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep per Shivkarandholiya12. Passes WP:NAWARDWP:GNG.
[15]WP:ROUTINE is irrelevant given the years of sufficient coverage in RS.
D4iNa4 (
talk) 12:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC) (modified 15:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC))reply
WP:NAWARD is not a valid policy or criteria.
Arjundeo Charan bags Bihari Puraskar article you quoted above, has exact same 4 line mention of the award in a
WP:ROUTINE article on award announcement sourced from "press statement" from K K Birla foundation. I have updated my analysis table to include this.
WP:ROUTINE is clearly applicable here. Thousands of foundations give millions of awards every year, just because they give award every year and their press statement gets published in newspaper, isn't a valid justification of notability see
WP:ORGIND. Significant coverage of the award in Reliable media is what is lacking here. If you can provide multiple sources with significant coverage, I will withdraw my nomonation myself. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)reply
WP:NAWARD is best we have to get idea of notability about the award related articles. Since that award is given by KK Birla Foundation, it is obvious that their statement would be covered. What else do you expect? Fact that it is covered by reliable independent sources is what we need for meeting criteria which is already provided to you with enough sources.
Shivkarandholiya12 (
talk) 16:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Do you see the archived template at
WP:NAWARD ? It is there because community has decided with consensus that
WP:NAWARD is no longer a valid guideline for notability. So please stop quoting it. If you think that this award is significantly covered, then why are you not presenting the references that have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" all the sources you are presenting are based on press statements and then arguing that such sources based on press statements are valid for notability. No they are not. Please see
Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Examples_of_dependent_coverage to be precise, that specifically excludes articles on Press statements from being used for notability. The fact that you are unable to find any sources other than routine award announcement based on Press statement, should itself make it clear to anyone that the subject is not notable. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep Passes
WP:NAWARD and receives independent coverage from reliable media whenever it is awarded to generally a notable person. Nom's rationale is misleading.
Orientls (
talk) 04:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable soruces that are independent of the subject.
GSS (
talk|
c|
em) 10:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Shashank5988 Thanks for sharing the relevant links. I note that first source you presented
[19] mentions, "A statement issued by the (award) selection committee..." which means this award announcement news article is based on the press statement and uses the exact same lines that all the articles from press statements have been using
Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Examples_of_dependent_coverage (
Churnalism). Both these 2 links
[20][21] talk about other writers and only have one line mention of the award saying this writer got the Bihari award.
The recent pile on votes that are quoting
WP:NAWARD, which is not an existing notability guideline or policy, never was. And making comments of
WP:ASSERTN without reliable sources to back the claim, should be appropriately discounted by the closing admin. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment-
Guys, can you please read the stuff rather than blindly copying whatever policy/guideline/essay the previous !voter has thrown in ?
NAWARD was instituted to segregate those awards which are so valued, that a mere recieval auto-entitles someone to an Wikipedia article.
It has not got much anything to do about the wiki-notability of the awards, themselves and the connections are tangential.
Whilst, initial response to the formulation of NAWARD was heartening; the editors lost interest soon-after and it was left to wither.
As it currently stands; it has not been actively vetted by the community.
∯WBGconverse 15:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.